Kerala High Court Convicts Man for Criminal Contempt Over "Scandalous" Facebook Posts Against Judges

Ernakulam: The Kerala High Court has convicted P.K. Suresh Kumar of criminal contempt, sentencing him to three days of simple imprisonment and a fine of ₹2,000 for a series of "scurrilous and objectionable" Facebook posts that attributed improper motives to sitting judges. A Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice Jobin Sebastian held that such acts, aimed at vilifying the judiciary and eroding public trust, are not protected as fair criticism under the right to freedom of speech.

Case Background

The High Court initiated suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against P.K. Suresh Kumar for publishing several posts on his Facebook profile between March 9 and March 17, 2024. This action came shortly after Kumar had been discharged in a previous contempt case, where he had tendered an unconditional apology for similar derogatory posts against another judge.

In the new series of posts, Kumar accused judges of the Devaswom Bench of being influenced by the " Sangh Parivar ," alleging that judgments were delivered to appease external factions and that one judge was motivated by a desire for elevation to the Supreme Court. He further claimed that lawyers affiliated with the organization were influencing judicial decisions by visiting the judge's chambers. Other posts targeted different judges, accusing one of acting under political compulsions and another of having "verbal diarrhoea."

The Contemnor's Arguments and Shifting Defence

Initially representing himself, Kumar filed a detailed counter-affidavit where he admitted to authoring the posts. He justified his actions as "fair comment" and an expression of his "mental anguish and indignation" over certain judicial decisions. He claimed his actions were a matter of public duty and that he was inspired by similar criticisms posted online by a practicing advocate.

However, during the evidence stage, Kumar dramatically shifted his stance. He denied authoring the posts, suggesting his mobile phone had been lost and his Facebook profile may have been misused. He also challenged the admissibility of the electronic evidence, including the certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.

Court's Analysis and Legal Principles

The High Court meticulously examined the evidence, including the testimony of court officials who downloaded the posts and certified their authenticity. The Bench found Kumar 's denial of authorship during the trial to be a "prevaricating stand" that reflected an "absence of candour," especially in light of his explicit admissions in his pleadings.

The Court reiterated the established legal principles governing criminal contempt, citing several Supreme Court precedents. The judgment emphasized the distinction between legitimate criticism and malicious attacks intended to scandalize the court.

"While fair and temperate criticism is protected, criticism based on distortion, falsehood, and aimed at vilifying the institution cannot be countenanced," the Bench observed. "The comments made by the respondent cannot be categorised as isolated or inadvertent remarks... his conduct reveals that the comments are deliberate, malicious, and suggesting ideological bias undermining the honesty and judicial competence and impartiality of judges and consequently of this Court."

The Court referenced the classic dictum from Ambard v. Attorney General for Trinidad and Tobago , noting that while justice is not a "cloistered virtue," critics must "abstain from imputing improper motives to those taking part in the administration of justice."

The Bench held that Kumar ’s allegations went far beyond fair comment and constituted a direct assault on the integrity of the judiciary.

"The insinuation that judgments were rendered at the behest of politically aligned advocates, for the personal advancement of Judges, attributes nothing short of judicial dishonesty and improper motives on the part of the judges of this Court," the judgment stated.

The Verdict and Sentence

Finding P.K. Suresh Kumar guilty of criminal contempt under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the Court sentenced him to three days of simple imprisonment and a fine of ₹2,000 . In default of payment, he is to undergo further simple imprisonment for one month.

The Court noted the seriousness of the offence, especially since Kumar was a repeat offender who had trivialized the judicial process by boasting about evading punishment in the previous case after tendering an apology. A plea for suspension of the sentence was declined by the Bench, citing the contemnor's antecedents. The Registrar General was directed to issue a warrant for his detention.